And pilots use HUD's so this must be safe? That would potentially hold water, if the pilots were using huds to tweet, text, and select music while landing... instead they're using huds to display important information...
I like the technology, I just don't like the suggested use cases for it...
The windshield would have navigational aids, but any surface in the car could be used to display hazards!
I want my car to identify if a pedestrian is present (highlighted in yellow) or if they appear to be crossing my heading (highlighted in red.)
I want my car to tell me if there is cross-traffic that is about to run a red light. I'd like to see speed and distance indicators for other vehicles on the road.
I'd love to see the speed of traffic I'm merging into. When I glance over my shoulder to check traffic I can see: !! 64MPH | 72MPH !! in yellow, indicating I should merge faster if I'm able.
If my car detects emergency vehicles or construction vehicles the HUD could draw attention to it in my windows or mirrors.
Perhaps my HUD could identify vehicles occupied by "Tweeters" so I can be sure to avoid them?
We're making self-driving cars... there are countless ways to apply that same technology to human-driven cars that would make the roads safer for everyone. If the best they can come up with is song selection and social media: I think their priorities are a bit misaligned.
Yet I am a still a gear head at heart and having the option to see engine temperature, oil pressure (provided its a real reading), fuel, and such, would be nice I do not need it in my field of view. Perhaps the items I want to really know can be designated to pop up when I stop.
So, nav dream state.
default, speed and limit.
Navigation if I am following a route
Ability to designate selected other values to display all the time, at stop, when near threshold.
I agree with your opinion. More data, even if relevant and not tweets, doesn't always mean better. The purpose of displayed information should be to augment decision making. If something is irrelevant to making a call, like engine temperature being in proper range, it should be out of sight because otherwise it's a (mild) distraction.
I can see the speed of traffic Im merging into, pedestrians, change of speed/flow of traffic ahead of me, and if a pedestrian appears to be willing to cross infront of me.
Without even having to think about it, I can just notice when there is emergency vehicles around or construction vehicles or any other danger-sign on the road. I can be talking to my passangers, listening to music or day-dreaming but would not miss any signs - its in the automated system already.
For me, having those kind of HUD stuff would just be even more redundant information to learn to automatically filter out/make judgements on.
In fact, I think such a heads-up-displays everywhere with color information, would just confuse drivers more and lead to more accidents - now you not only have to keep eyes on the road/let brain handle the information and do its thing - but also interpret and learn the various displays and what they mean, but also to confirm what they display to the sorrounding. More info to process - more error prone decisions.
In my 18's I though the same, why all those precautions? I can write SMS and not kill anyone! Truth is, I was lucky not to run into emergency situation while being distracted by mobile.
There is very little risk in regular circumstances, but when unlikely events overlap bad things happen. Blown tire on a motorway, cyclist falling to the middle of a road, uncontrolled vehicle approaching you, and other infinitely many rare possibilities.
P.S. highlighting pedestrians might be life-saving during minimal vision weather.
Outline a car that a standing still or rapidly decreasing speed. This would reduce mundane traffic accidents due to perception errors.
Show road lanes, especially in poor visibility.
Help nightblind users to drive at night
I dont fiddle with my phone when in the car - there is a holder for it on the dashboard so I can see and hear it clearly when GPS/GoogleMaps is on.
Running into an emergency situation and having different color lights or other information on any windshield would be disaster.
Ive been in emergency situations many times, in other countries and one which I believe has the most unsafe roads in the world. Escaped many though situations.
And Ive also hardly survived a frontal crash with another car (in the safe country), I was going 70km/h and other one was equal or faster. I wouldnt recommend adding more information than already present for a human brain to take decisions on. That information can be fed to a computer to take decisions when cars become self-driving.
But yeah HUD is cool. I would use it to show the speedometer higher up than it is right now.
My current car will give warnings if it sees cross traffic approaching when in reverse. It has warned me a few times when someone is driving way too quickly through a parking lot and my view has been blocked by parked cars.
Things like this are REALLY useful. You just don't realize how useful they are because you haven't used the technology yet.
Just the other day my friend drove past someone who was actively backing out a big SUV.
As we drive past our car is well below the level of the SUVs rear window. I just thought to myself: "he's incredibly lucky the SUV even saw him."
How about "No?" Is "No" supported?
I was downtown in a very busy urban center that I absolutely hate navigating. I was so happy to have an iPhone that was aiding me through the maze of one-way streets; for once I wouldn't be late for my rendezvous.
Just then: the person I was picking up decided to call me.
iOS decided that a phone call was more important than driving, so it displayed a full screen alert which closed my navigation session.
As a result I of course missed the turn and ended up in a rather stressful situation.
Now this was before iOS had built in turn-by-turn navigation; so I don't think it's fair to say that Apple intended it to be used as a replacement for a navigation aid; but the incident still sends chills down my spine.
The iPhone is no longer with me: but that was the point where I decided two things. (1) my iPhone would always be jailbroken. (2) The "CallBar" app in the Cydia store was well worth the pocket change I paid for it.
I can't stand the notion that social interaction is somehow more important than driving.
When you're driving: your utmost attention is the one and only social obligation you should be expected to fulfill.
Smartphones are very rarely marketed _as phones._
They are marketed based on differentiating features: everyone knows that the flagship Androids and the iPhone are plenty good at making calls.
This leads you to sell the device based on it's lifestyle features: like Siri, or Google Now. Often they are touted for their entertainment capabilities, or marketed as portable media players.
These devices are sold as though _they're more than a phone._
So I don't think it's entirely unrealistic to expect the dialer to be designed to cooperate with other apps.
My phone has more CPU cores, more RAM, and more storage than many netbooks. So I find it a bit strange that Skype on my netbook doesn't demand my full attention, but Skype on my phone not only demands it, _ but commands it._
The nav system is great. They should have led with that.
Problem with planes is really high speed, so the plane can be just a pinhead, even if there's good visibility and in the following 15 seconds you're doing something else, is enough to collide.
It comes down to probabilities. While driving, stare at a map for 15 seconds. What are the odds that you crash? Probably quite high. Better than 50/50, I'd say. Now, when flying, stare at a map for 15 seconds. What are the odds that you crash? It's not zero, but it's close.
Even more, mounting "something" to the front window is illegal in a lot of places in the world . At least Netherlands and U.S. In The Netherlands operating a phone while driving (voice operated carkit exempt) gives you a ~$250 fine.
Furthermore, obstructing part of your window is dangerous. You could miss something. And it's distracting (our eyes focus on motion).
What a idiotic idea.
Sadly you're wrong. Holding a phone is illegal, operating it while in a car kit is officially nog prohibited.
Het is degene die een motorvoertuig, bromfiets, snorfiets of gehandicaptenvoertuig dat is uitgerust met een motor bestuurt verboden tijdens het rijden een mobiele telefoon vast te houden.
Obviously, the law doesn't say anything about HUDs, and it will probably take a few years for legislation to catch up with technology in that area.
People die because other people drive while distracted. There are no excuses for being severely and unnecessarily distracted while behind the wheel just so you can check your messages. It really is as simple as that.
The answer isn't letting people who think it's OK to drive like this be a bit less distracted with a HUD. The answer is imposing penalties equivalent to what they'd get if, say, they fired a loaded gun in a random direction from the middle of a crowded shopping mall.
My jaw hit the floor the first time it went off. My jaw also hit the floor when it read a rather private message while I was a _passenger_ in someone else's car.
(Phone): New text message from John Smith. Would you like to hear it?
(Phone): "Bla bla text message contents here"
(Your Spouse): Yes.
I think the moto x is an awesome phone but this is indeed a problem :)
HUDs are a good idea, but it should be showing info about driving.
Music is pretty distracting to some people. Car stereos should definitely be banned too.
To be fair, both having a conversation and listening to music keep me alert when driving. Yes, it might also produce cognitive overload, but in my case it's definitely better than cognitive underload (boredom).
You know what's by far the most distracting thing to me while driving? Constantly checking my speedometer. In some areas I do it constantly, out of fear of getting a speeding ticket. I don't even want to speed!
We've all seen this fail at times too. That's when the driver has to tell the passenger to stop talking so they can concentrate on directions or signage, etc.
> In contrast, the University of Illinois meta-analysis concluded that passenger conversations were just as costly to driving performance as cell phone ones.
> AAA ranks passengers as the third most reported cause of distraction-related accidents at 11 percent, compared to 1.5 percent for cellular telephones.
> A simulation study funded by the American Transportation Research Board concluded that driving events that require urgent responses may be influenced by in-vehicle conversations, and that there is little practical evidence that passengers adjusted their conversations to changes in the traffic.
For example, what the meta-analysis paper actually says is:
"From our analyses, in-vehicle (passenger) conversations were just as costly to driving performance as were remote (cell phone) conversations. This suggests that passengers, at least in those studies explored here, did not moderate their conversation in such a way as to alleviate the costs (as compared with remote conversers). These results must be interpreted with caution, however, given that relatively few studies directly examined the impact of passenger conversations."
If you look at their table of the original research they are working from, you can clearly see why they included that cautionary note.
Alternatively, a few minutes with Google Scholar will get you numerous primary sources that show a clear distinction between the effects of remote conversation and the effects of passenger interaction. Some studies suggest that passengers who don't moderate their conversation still have a negative effect, but hardly anyone has data that implies an effect as bad as cell phone conversations. Other studies found evidence that passengers can also be a benefit, for example warning an insufficiently attentive driver of a hazard they had failed to recognise themselves.
There is unfortunately not very much research into more specific conditions when passengers may prove to be a particularly serious distraction. For example, we know that young and inexperienced drivers are disproportionately likely to have accidents, but we don't yet know for sure whether passengers of a similar age are disproportionately likely to be a significant distraction. There is some evidence to suggest that this is at least a plausible theory, and in some places young and inexperienced drivers are now limited in the passengers they can take when they first start driving unsupervised.
The AAA reference is from 2001, and the document it links to is gone. Archive.org link: https://web.archive.org/web/20061020134705/http://www.aaapub...
Haven't seen any actual numbers yet, but the 'human conversation' thing - 11% - how many of those involved children in the back seats distracting the driver?
When I do it to my mother she gets cross and starts talking even more, which is even more distracting. There is no good way out of this situation I am afraid. Some people have absolutely no situational awareness and are actively distracting as passengers.
When I was a kid and my dad was driving and had to make a left turn or perform some other maneuver that required his full attention, he'd ask everyone in the car to be quiet. This was a man that raced automobiles as a hobby and worked in professional racing at the highest levels his entire life.
> we should ban talking to your passengers on a car too, right
That genie is already out of the bottle and would be impractical to implement. In any case it far less distracting talking to a passenger than trying to reply to a text or conducting what may be a serious conversation on a phone. Additionally the passenger can shut up instantly if (s)he sees a situation developing or even help bring your attention to it.
> both having a conversation and listening to music keep me alert when driving
On a long, boring trip, with very little to concentrate on, it can make sense to have the radio playing and someone talking to you. However on a rainy evening, in fast moving traffic, that same radio and passenger could get you killed and others with you. It is easy to turn off and ignore the radio and to ask your passenger, who can see the danger to please keep quiet for a while. It is a lot more difficult to ignore your phone when expecting that important call under these conditions.
> far the most distracting thing to me while driving? Constantly checking my speedometer
Seriously? Glancing at your speedometer is more distracting than a phone? Besides, glancing at your speedometer for a second carries far less risk than answering a text and having a fight with your girlfriend on the phone.
If they know what to look for. Doesn't work with children, people who don't drive themselves so they have no idea what to look out for, or even worse, it can work the other way around, when someone yells "WATCH OUT" at the top of their lungs because they perceive danger, even though you were not in any(saying hi to all my elderly relatives here).
Of course, I do realize that there are accidents caused by texting/emailing and driving at the same time, and as such, I do think it should be banned everywhere. When you're driving, your one and only concern should be what's going on around your vehicle.
Should we ban talking to your passengers in your car too? Perhaps. While we're at it, could we also ban our kids from fighting in the back seat and bothering us with "Daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy, daddy! Can I have a cookie?" Would such a ban be realistic? No, of course it wouldn't. If you could, would it significantly reduce the number of accidents on our roads? If my own experience is anything to go by, it most certainly would.
All we can do is assess crash statistics, ban those activities that can reasonably be banned where it would reduce in a reduction in those statistics.
Is it reasonable to ban the use of cell phones and all forms of mobile communication while driving? Absolutely. We used to drive all the time without phones in the car. We used to leave our houses without the ability to communicate at all until we got back to a land line. I think in extenuating circumstances, it can be overlooked, but if the statistics show that mobile device usage behind the wheel of a car results in accidents, we can easily go back to not using them when we're behind the wheel of the car. Will we? I'd say it's unlikely given the number of drivers I passed this morning, still holding their cell phones to their ears - despite this behaviour being banned in this province since 2010, with fines as heavy as $1,000 and 3 demerit points.
It's easy to say "You know what the most distracting thing is...?" but honestly, you can't remove all distracting things. All you can do is remove as many of them as you can reasonably remove and do your best to mitigate the risk of the remainder.
I do think that having my nav and my speedometer on the HUD would be far better though.
You may be on to something. You've seen the number of people out there who actually turn to face their passengers full on while driving, right?
Actually it's pretty odd. I don't look at the passenger when I'm driving, though of course we'll converse. Even at stop lights, I spend more time checking the light and my rear view mirror than I do looking at my passenger. My responsibility as a driver requires me to do so when I'm driving, whether it's slow, fast or stopped.
This makes a lot of people noticeably uncomfortable.
I've taken to actually turning my face slightly towards people periodically, while keeping eyes ahead -- just to avoid creating a sense of awkwardness.
nope, it doesn't happen in real life.
I have been in far more close calls as a result of being distracted by my passengers than by my cell phone.
So advertisements beside roads should be banned?
I actually find those permanent-installation LED government road signs warning of lane closures and advising of average travel times to be worse because the angle at which they're viewable tends to be terrible and require you to pay more attention to read them than they should.
Take your pick.
You're not supposed to talk to bus drivers without good reason, and this is partially why.
This whole "distracted driving" thing is horseshit. If the road is your PRIMARY focus than you can do all of the things I just mentioned and not die. It's really that easy.
 - http://www.ibtimes.com/texting-drivers-take-eyes-road-5-seco...
 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ss021L0hWU4
A given driver on a given trip is well-shown to be more attentive to traffic and less disruptive if you deny them distractions. (conversation, radio, food, etc)
But it seems plausible that a lost driver is a special case and may be less attentive and more disruptive to traffic if you deny them a navigational aid.
Anecdotally that feels true, though I don't know if it's been studied specifically.
Also, I don't know about you, but I don't have to think much about eating, compared to carrying on a conversation or reading.
Your hero image with an example of a HUD should probably not be a prompt to watch a video. That's just about the most dangerous thing that a HUD could ask you to do.
Though I guess you can say that if you saw it that way, it is still reason to change that, to avoid confusion.
Um, when I'm flying a plane, I don't:
- have other 4,000-lb planes 3' away that I could collide with after a moment's distraction
- compose tweets by speaking aloud while staring at a screen, and then when the voice recognition system doesn't work properly, have to retry multiple times while staring at the screen
- talk on the phone to my mother
- play music while navigating through crowded airspace (some pilots do on longer cross-country trips, of course)
- need to have my airspeed projected in front of me (maybe on takeoff it would be useful)
- have apps pop up notifications directly in my field of vision when I'm trying to focus on one of those 4,000-lb objects that's about to collide with me
- have some of those other 4,000-lb objects near me controlled by people who are composing tweets, etc. rather than focusing on the task of flying
What I do want to be doing is scanning the airspace around me for other planes, scanning my instruments to make sure all is well, etc...
Navdy seems like a good HUD implementation from a technological standpoint, and unlike other folks here I don't think it should be banned. But assuring everyone it's safe because "pilots use it" seems like a statement made without, well, talking to pilots first.
They hold the phones down low, to avoid tickets.
I feel Navdy is an improvement on those situations, but I still don't like where things are headed.
Thanks for the laugh :-)!
This was my first thought as well. I saw a Mercedes the other day with the "lane change assist."
Rather hilariously: I was behind the Mercedes at a right turn, and you could see the "danger" light in her mirror indicating that my little sedan was in the blindspot of her enormous GLK.
(Ironically the tech itself was a distraction _to me_ because I was trying to figure out where the sensor package was, and how sensitive the instrumentation was. I had never seen it that closely before -- perhaps I should go to a Mercedes dealership.)
I want that sort of tech on every glass surface of the car. Anywhere I can see a vehicle: I should be able to see "potential hazard information."
i know i will only be able to control minimal navigation and calls options.
no other app will ever play along. e.g. you skype calls will either block everything or only show up on your phone screen... to the point integration is so bad you still have your phone on the holder next to that screen and in the end you are using your phone directly more than that projector.
Why can't I just have a list of "high priority apps" and "low priority apps", or even just "highest priority" and "everything else."
It's not something an app can solve; but I personally spend a long time trying to ensure that my phone is safe to use as a navigational aid. Currently this usually includes voiding my warranty (to root, jailbreak, etc.) so that I can bypass the stock dialer. -- That just feels _wrong_ to me. I should not be voiding my warranty to make a device safer.
Video Screen Restriction
Hands-free Cell Phone Use Only
Ban on Texting While Driving
Restrictions on Cell Phone Use for Novice Drivers and School Bus Drivers
Law: Prohibits any person from driving a motor vehicle if a video monitor, or a video screen or any other similar device that displays a video signal is operating and is located forward of the driver's seat or is visible to the driver. Provides exceptions for emergency equipment.
Statute: California Vehicle Code §2890 (West 2004)
Penalties: No Penalty Specified.
Law: Prohibits the use of handheld cell phones while driving. Allows exceptions in emergency situations.
Statute: California Vehicle Code §12810.3 and §23123
Penalties: $20 for first offense, $50 for each subsequent offense.
Law: A person shall not drive a motor vehicle while using an electronic wireless communications device to write, send or read a text-based communication
Statute: California Vehicle Code 23123 (2009)
Penalties: Infraction - $20 first offense, $50 for subsequent.
Law: School and transit bus drivers and drivers younger than 18 will be banned for all cell phone use while driving (regardless of hands-freeheadset).
Statute: 2007 California Statutes, Chap. 214
Penalties: $20 for first offense, $50 for each subsequent offense.
Really? So are Sat Navs banned in California?
27602. (a) A person shall not drive a motor vehicle if a television receiver, a video monitor, or a television or video screen, or any other similar means of visually displaying a television broadcast or video signal that produces entertainment or business applications, is operating and is located in the motor vehicle at a point forward of the back of the driver’s seat, or is operating and the monitor, screen, or display is visible to the driver while driving the motor vehicle.
(b) Subdivision (a) does not apply to the following equipment when installed in a vehicle:
(1) A vehicle information display.
(2) A global positioning display.
(3) A mapping display.
(4) A visual display used to enhance or supplement the driver's view forward, behind, or to the sides of a motor vehicle for the purpose of maneuvering the vehicle.
So a GPS display .... even heads-up ... should be fine. But if you start showing video messages of your friend from Instagram, then you're probably going to violate the existing laws.
This is just a gimmick. I would never, ever want it to display tweets or whatever distracting content, just because you can still see the road doesn't mean it won't take away your attention. Until we have self-driving cars there is no technology that will magically make it possible to multitask while driving...
Few challenging tasks ahead for Navdy team like:
1. I get tonnes of marketing SMS, It should recognize which SMS should be delivered to HUD might depend the ratio of conversation I make with the sender and decide based on that? (Yeah I live in other side of the planet)
2. I might not need integration with Twitter and other social media accounts they are definitely not meant to get my focus while driving
3. As per other HN commenter, it would be awesome if it can recognize the signals or detect objects ahead of some 10m and warn me and get me a path way to ride? determine the pathway depending on the car dimensions ? (Yes, I live in India and commuting here in city is really makes you very skillful in driving :), something like in Captain America 2 film wind sheild? Yeah I know easier said than done )
4. May be get them the HUD view of rear and help me to drive reverse without need to turn around ? (Asking for too much?)
But definitely worth an attempt.
My gut tells me you'd need some kind of reflecting sheet stuck in the windshield or the light would just go through. My guess is the screen in Navdy is actually reflecting light polarized in a specific angle, but I could be completely wrong.
Also, it would be harder because windshields are not planar nor perpendicular to the light source, which distorts the projected image. You'd have to calibrate it constantly, I guess that's why Navdy has a screen.
There's also the law. I believe you can't stick things to the windshield for safety reasons, specially if they occlude light.
It seems the optics might not be that hard: a mini-projector, a mirror (though I don't know why you wouldn't just project the light directly) and somewhere to reflect the light.
If it detected you were at a red light, maybe it might be appropriate to display such, but please, not while a kid might be running in front of you, ignorant of your presence.
Having driven HUD cars on several 800+ mls roadtrips, i prefer BMW one the most. Camaro (2012 model) was so distracting, i had to turn it off due to glare at night.
BMW HUD is truly useful, but youre NOT TRULY looking at the road while looking at it - your eyes are focusing on a point in road that's only about 50 feet from you. Granted that's better than your lap where the cell phone is, its still not enough time to react to something happening in front at highway speeds - so as many have said, bringing texts/full voice interaction to this thing strikes me as dubious.
Also, wouldn't cops consider it to be a windshield obstruction? Its a giant box on top of the instrument cluster... many petite members of our society barely clear the steering wheel with their eyes...
PS: After about a week with a HUD you'll have a hard time going back to a car without one, but i don't ever see how this would be safe for anything except GPS.
Lastly, MSRP looks to be ~$450 - which is not far from integrated navi system (with which you get proper Bluetooth, traffic, no data plan requirements, and so on).
Another one here: https://www.navdy.com/assets/directions-491e1e1af7ef47c676ab...
It would have been funnier had they used the Aston Martin logo, since the Fusion grill design is a rip off of the iconic Aston Martin shape. In Ford's defense, they did own Aston Martin until 2007.
No, some people do. It's illegal and I'm all for increasing policing and penalties to stop them.
He did not say all people. He said "people". You are saying the same thing he did, except you said "no" in front of it. My own anecdotal evidence is that I don't know a single person that won't use their cellphone while driving.
> It's illegal and I'm all for increasing policing and penalties to stop them.
That's a blanket statement that isn't true. Certain activities on the cell may be illegal in certain states, but hands-free talking generally isn't—as far as I know isn't illegal in mine.
I use my cell phone for maps and music while I drive, and will continue to do so even if people like you get laws passed to make it illegal. As far as I'm concerned, the cat is out of that particular bag (and it's undeniably safer than maps and music in the days before cell phones).
Here's just a few of the points you try to make:
- You don't think cellphone-driving laws work unless there is a cop literally with you 24/7.
- You think this device minimizes distracted driving (?)
- You think cellphone usage while driving is going to increase regardless (?)
- You feel that because cellphone usage while driving is going to increase (unsupported) and that Navdy is less distracting (unsupported) that Navdy is an improvement (?)
If you believe this stuff then you have to at least try a little tiny bit to justify it. Those are pretty far out there opinions some of which aren't really supported by the admittedly limited data we have.
A horrifically bad solution does not become good simply because the problem it solves is "inevitable."
But it looks bulky and the display is a bit low and meagre. I don't think we should be encouraging people to read/compose tweets or texts while driving. Take a call or get directions or show my speed and the limits, sure, but tweets can surely wait.
More often than not, someone other side won't realize I'm driving and see I can work out some magic until I tell them I'm driving.
Because of this annoyance I've started ignoring any attempts to reach me while I'm driving.
What would be cool service, actually would be the service that can cause call to go through only when it's really urgent, but caller only gets a certain number of "urgency" calls to be saved for REAL emergency.
Example: I'm supposed to pick up my friend from the airport. I've got my wireless headphones on so he can call but he never does. He always texts. "Just landed", "Waiting for Luggage", "Coming out of the terminal". Of course he never tells me where :P I'd prefer he'd call since he knows I'm driving but since texting is the default for most people nowadays it's what they do first.
As a driver myself it does occur to me I shouldn't text either if I'm being picked up but I don't know what calling is any better because a call requires them to pick up where as they can ignore a text if they want.
When it did become legal (or even advisable) to charge a credit card more than 30 days in advance of shipment?
Given all the kickstarter hardware startup fiascos, there is NO way I'm paying for a piece of technology this complex 4+ months in advance of estimated delivery times. I'm fully expecting to see "Where is my Navdy!!!?!?!" threads around about this time next year.
If they are using the CAN connection on ODB-II then I'm connecting my car to the internet. Sure, most cars only put non-critical stuff on that particular bus but I don't want script kiddies turning on my radio or flashing my lights while I'm driving.
Hopefully its not required and I can just make a power only cable.
Using it to make texting and other non-driving related functions more accessible is a slippery slope towards driver distraction and pretty directly linkable liability for this company.
Why can't it read the message back to me? That would give me a rough idea of whether Siri got it right?
"Your message to PERSON says SIRI-MANGLED-MESSAGE. Would you like to send it?"
You can send or change it by voice.
Navdy's interface looks quite a bit nicer though, for sure.
Just focus on the 1-3 tons of vehicle you're bimbling around in.
1 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=w9Sx34swEG0
https://www.tilt.com | https://open.tilt.com
gets pulled over by a cop
Yes a ticket is the worst that can happen when you're distracted while driving.
Why does my car need Twitter?
It comes down to.. would I rather someone be sending a text while looking down at their phone. Or would I feel better about someone sending a text, a message that's being sent regardless, while looking ahead in front of them.